1. Nelluri Thirupathaiah v. 1. The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limlted

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be .....RESPONDENTS &' f pleased to call lor th'3 records from the respondents and issue I a n appropriate Writ, Order or [Jire'clton, particularly one in the nature of V/r t rf Mandamus declaring that re ectior orders issued to the petitioners through Lr'f"o CGM(HRD) /GM(Per)/AS(Pers ;tnrl Ser)lPO-At214-AZt2O22-1 dated 21 032t022 issued by the respondent No.il uphclding the finding of previous committee tha: record proof submitted by tht-' p':titioners not available in pursuance to the rrot fication dated 08.06.2006 21i lsrrtse 'J notification dated 13'07 2006 in speak ng orders dated 18.02.2020 inspite o'' the said orders were set aside by this Hcn'ble Court in W.P.No.1 1825ti):O2l ;rnd batch on 09'12 2021 is arbitrary' illegal and violative of Article't4and15o'Oonstitutionoflndiaandsetasidethesameartddeclarethat the petitioners are t:ligible and qualified to hold the post of C ontract Junior Lineman on par u,'ith others as per notification dated 08 06'2005 and revised notificationdatedl3tDTt2oo6andgrantallconsequentialbenefitl;, I,A.NO:'l oF 2022 Petition l-Jnder liection 151 CPC praying that in the circLlnrstances stat'ed in the affidavit filerd rn support of the petition' the High Court may be ploased to direct the respondents to suspend operation of the procer:dings issued in Lr.No CGtrl(HRD)/'3t/(Per)/ AS(Pers&Ser)/PO'At214-A2't202?--1 dated 21.03.2022 by tht: tespondent No 2 and consider the cases of petitioners for appointment as Jutt^ior L'neman on par with others as per notification dated 08.06.2006 an'l r(:vised notification dated 13 07 2006 pending 'Jisposal of the above writ Petition, Counsel for the P etitioners SRI A.PHANI BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SRI G'VIDYA SAGAR' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING ISMT K.UDAYA SRI The Court macle the following ORDER / / HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2256 6 oF 2022 OR DER: Heard Sri A. phani Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Designated Counset representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The Detiti oners aD roache the C urt see kinq or ver as under: ".....to call For the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that rejection orders issued to the petitioners through Lr.No.CGM(HRD) /GM(per)/AS(pers&Ser)/pO- A/214-A2/2022-7 dated 21.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 upholding the .finding of previous committee that record proof submitted by the petitioners not available in pursuance to the notification dated 08.06.2006 and revised notification dated 73.07.2006 in speaking orders dated 18.02.2020 inspite oF the said orders were set aside by this Hon,ble Court in W.P.No.11B25l202L & batch on Og.L2.ZO2L is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and / 7 SN,J up li56 r-2022 declare l.hat 'lre petitioners are eligible and qualifie'J to hold the p'lst of Contract lunior Lineman on par 'rrilh others ar:; f 'e' notification dated 08 06'2006 and revise d notificatiorl dated 13 07'2006 and grant itll conseqLlent 'rl benefits and pass such other orcler )r orders r-na / leem fit and proper in the circumstanc ls of the case. ' W.P.No.1 were engagr':d

3. The case of the petltioners, in brief is that the f)et tioners l!i Contract lunior Linemen in the year 2(t06 and have been servlng continuously since then. Their re'lu lsts for initially rejected due to pending crirrinitl cases' regularizatic n vr €rre which have L'e(.rlr ended in acquittal or closure. P lrs'uant to 182-5 of 2O2L and batch' on Og'12'2021 ' tlris; ( ourt set r(3je:rion orders and dlrected for reconsider' ti( n of the of tht,r petitioners' However' the Respon(lont s issued rr-ders dated 04'Ot'2024 citing a ne\\ lround that the petitir:ne -s weTe not sponsored through the t:m ployment Exchange'athlch was never part of the original rejectirlrt '\ggrieved by the sanre, th(: petitioners filed the present writ petitiorr' fresh rejectrort aside the requests RUS ED TI{E RECORD: f J

4. The Detitioners a D[rro is Court on an ea rl ier SN,J wP 22566 2022 casr nb titi nt 20 1 and batch andth e relevant D rtton ated 9.L2. o21 se c e der: W.P.No.11 825 f the said order "When the matters are taken up for hearing, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had fairly conceded that the impugned orders dated LB.O2.2O2O and 09.03.2021 be set aside, as they are not reasoned orders. If only the petitioners submit fresh representa tio n s, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that let the petitioners be permitted to submit fresh representations and let the respondents consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 18.02.2020 and 09.03.202L are set aside, as no reasons are assigned while rejecting the cases of the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to submit fresh representations to the respondents seeking appointment as a Junior Lineman within SN.J D566 20?) .,1 \ tu,o ,.vr, t:ks From the date of receipt of copy c f this ordel Llpon such representations being recr:iv:d' tl'e rer:;llondents shall consider the same anc p'lss appr()priate orders, in accordance with law, riit hin a re;ts'lnable period, preferably within a per oc1 of eiqht v reeks thereafter. \\iiFh the above directions, the writ pe'iti'lns are cli-.[,osed of- No costs'" 5 The res oonden No.2 chief Gen eral Manaqer (H RD) TSS PDCL Cor o rate offi e, Mint Co mDou nd, Hvderabad a dd res a lette r Lr,No. CG M(HRD ) M( Per ) AS( Pers & Ser )/PO-A 2t4-A2/20 22..L, dated 2r.o3.2022 oth ner here obs rvl n as; under: ".fhe Hon'ble High Court by CommorL r)rders datec ()1).12.2021 disposed the W'P'No 11825 ot' 2OZl filed ry Sri Nelluri Thirupathaiah and 5 others w th the folloill rr<7 directions : ' T his Court, having considered the rival subrr isstons made by the parties, is of the :ons;idered vir:w thi:t the impugned orders dated 1B'02"10"10 and 0,1.0.3.2021 are set aside, as no reasons are as'signed wrile rejecting the cases of the petitioner:;' The petit oners are permitted to submi: fresh the respondents s;eeking repro:;{lltations to aDpointTent as a iunior Lineman within 1-v/o weeks K;*..,x{&r;.:; :,.:.,i . :. ..l I - SN,J wp 22566 2022 from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such representations being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter,,.

2. In compliance of the above Orders of the Hon'ble High Court, your case is carefully examined. Upon careful consideration of the subject matter with reference to the record available the following speaking order is issued:

2.1. That the APCPDCL issued NotiFication dated 08.06.2006 for filling up 2443 vacant posts of lunior Lineman on Contract Basis. The vacancies notified to Operation Circle, Nalgon da are 214 Nos. Subsequently. revised Notification was issued on 20.10.2006. As per the selection criteria laid in the Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 preference is given to the ,,presently serving contract labour who are working now for manning of Sub-Stations of A. p.Tra nsco/Ap. Discoms with recorded evidence through Sub.-Station Log Books to be certified by the concerned Divisional Engineer OR Presently serving contract labour for any other works in A. P.Tra nsco/A. p. Discoms with recorded evidence of EPF number in his name to be certified by the concerned Divisiona I Engineer. (, 'I SN.J \p 22566_2022

2.-,. Il'e petitioners herein in W P'No l-18"'5 of 2O2l end batch applied for the post of Contra':t lLMs in N a lg c'n'1a Circle' .i The particulars oF the petltiorer; of .1.825 of 2O2l as per their applicatiorls a -e as ') W.F.Nrr fo llr:w s sl. No Name of the Petitionor Application No, Qualification 2969 ITI (Electrical) 2947 ITI ( Electrical) 3 150 lTI ( Electrica l) 2674 ITI (Electrical) Nellu r i Tiru pa ih; i r'1, S/o Nla rs nr r I Kannr:bo r;; Tlrup,rti. Si'o Nageswa r Fliro V. Kira n Kurrar, S/o Pras,lrl l Rao Sk. Abd t I Ra nee nl, :,/, lan im iy a v ] :s:r- lTI (Electrical) 1 2 4 6 2968 ITI ( Electrica l) : l j a Akkirali Sr Prasad, >/ Ra m 3cl.l I l Rao Med r Sl- a:: I I Kurrar S/) Madhav,l [liro Date of Birth 10-0i3- t97 6 20-03 1981 04-08 7971) " O3-CB 197 ,/ 30-06- 197 7 03-o4- 797 7 Experience certificate Issued B DE/O/SuryaPet Working as Semi- Skrlled at Kodad Town DE/O/SuryaPet - Working as SS OPe rator at 33/11 KVSS, l.4ellacheruvu DE/O/SuryaPet - Working as SS operato r al33/17 KVSS Chilku r DE/o/SuryaPet - Working as SS O perator at 33/11 KVSS, G. Th iru mala DE/O/SuryaPet - Working as SS O perator at 33/lf IKVSS, Nadiqudem DE/O/SuryaPet - Working as Semi- Skilled at Kodad Town .l .4. On verification of records, it is fourrC that' at r"r3 :ime oF submitting applications for the p('|st of r nder r.on1.rat:t lLM, the ellgibility of the petition€rr; 7 7 SN,J wp_22566 2022 the category of contract labour for the post of clLM as per notification is not substantiated with record proof. ThereFore, their rhe rhen serection .;ffi:5";"J ;::''fftJ; eligible contract labour though they have passed the pole climbing test conducted on 05.06.2007"

2.5. All the above the Hon,be H sh co,; ::ffi :::il::j,"#r:: their cases for appointment as JLM and the Hon,ble High Court disposed of the Wp No.4330 of 2015 by Orders dated 09.08.2019 in terms of the Orders dated 09.08.2019 in W.p.No.14304 of 2019 duty setting aside the o B. 07 . 20 t 7, r r. o r., o r r the petitioners. ti,r"j -;::.. r::t:: ;ff tt".

2.6. In compliance of the above directions oF the Hon,ble High Court in W.p.No.4330 of 2015 the following Speaking Orders are issued to the above individuals vide proceedings dated 18.02.2020. Out of 2I4 v Circle, as on date 4 pursuance to the no the Hon,ble High Cou is found that, at the for the post of acancies notified in Nalgonda 90 posts were already filled in tification and various orders of rt. On verification of records, it time oF submitting applications contract JLM, it was not 8 SN.J '. r))66 1022 subst,t rtiated with record proof that thr:t' are eliqib e for selection under the category of contr act labour f or the post of CILM as per notification ' r\lthough they have passed the pole c'limtring test r:r:,nducted during the period from 02 0(' 2107 to Ori. )6.2007, the selection committee d d not considr::t their candidature, since theV faiLed to substartl:iate with record proof that they are r:lig;ible tc trr: considered under the contract laIrour ci:te(lo 'y'. The selectlon committee further that the y are not within the zone of consideratiCn in tl'r: other category i.e., fresh candidate Theretore' tf e s;e'€rction commlttee did not include their na mes in the list of selected candidates' -t1e then selection committee from amc nc the cianc icJates who are successful in the pole c inrbing test a lproved and finalized, the list of 539 eli'3ible contract labour who produced the record ltocf for sele:t'on under contract Iabour category' The selection committee did not sel(:ct any cutsiid€)r for the posts notified in oper-atior circle' l',laltlr:nda as the candidates eligible under r:')r'tract l'rbc)u - category are 539, whereas the post nc tified are 2l l4 onlY. ./r 9 SN..I wp 22566 2022 Although they have enclosed the copies of record proof along with their representation dated 30-08-2019, same could not be verified with the original records, since the same are not available at this length of time. In the circumstances mentioned above, it stood established that they are not found eligible to be appointed as Contract lLM, hence consideration of their case with reference to clause 6 (iv) (c) of revised notification dated 20.10.2006 does not a rise.

3. The above individuals challenged the Speaking Orders dated 18.02.2020 through W.P.No.1182S of 2O2t and the Hon,ble High Court disposed of the same by Order Dated 09.12.2021 setting aside the Speaking Orders dated 18.02.2020 permitting the petitioner to file fresh representations seeking appointment as ILM and upon such representations being received directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petifioners and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. pursuant to the said Orders the petitioners have submitted representations Dated Nil received on 24.12.2021 requesting to consider their case for 6pp6inlpent to the post of 10 SN,J (16 2022 up -125 JLvl ort par benef it i with others with all conserlrletrtial 4, A Committee was constituted \i'ide Mem o.No'CCM(HRD)/GM(Per)/AS(Per&Ser )/P O-Ai 2:r4-A2/2OOg, Dt' 17'O1'2022 to exanrine the representations of the petitioners' The Crf,mnrittee having considered the matetial on record came to the conclusion that the find'ings arrived at by the previous committee whir:h led to the issuance of Speaking Ordlers' datt:d LA-O2-2O2O do not call fot' any interference since the same hold good; that it concur with the decision of the JLM seler:tion of the corrrmittee ol 2OO7; to the prerrious Committee Speaking Orders dated 18-O2-2O2O' and the decision which gave rise

5. Further it was held by the committee thatn since the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria/ conditions stipulated for selectic'n as Corrtract Junior Lineman and hen< e petitioners are found not eligible to appointed as CJLM in terms of the Notifi sation'

6. For the reasons stated above' your reF,resentation dated Nil received on '.24.Llz,2O2L requesting for appointmenl tl) the ___ 3i SN,J wp_22566 2022 Post of Junior Lineman agaanst Notifications dated Og.06.2006 20.LO.2006 is hereby rejected,

7. These orders are passed in compliance to the Orders dated 09.12.2O2L of the Hon,ble High Court in W.P.No. 11825 of 2O21 and batch." DISC USSIONANDC oNC LUS ION:- 6. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the impugned rejection orders issued by the 2nd respondent, dated ZL.O}.2O22 had been passed mechanicatty, unilaterally in a routine manner simply upholding the earlier speaking orders, dated LA.O2.ZO2O without assigning any reasons. The 2nd respondent ignored the fact as borne on record that the earlier speaking orders, dated LA.O2.2O2O had been set-aside by this Court in its judgment, dated 09.12.2021 passed in W.p.No.11g25 of 2021 hence, the 2nd respondent coutd not have uphetd the same vide the impugned orders, dated 21.O3.2O22 7, The learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairry submits that in view of the fact as borne on record that the impugned rejection orders, SN.J ),2566 )022 \\ ll dated 21,03.2O22 issued by the 2nd respondent are not in 09.L2.2021 true spirit rcl' the orders of this Court dated passed in W.P'No'11825 of 2021 and batch (referr'r:d to and extracted elbove) and since the 2nd respondent passed orders mechirnically and in a routine manner' the matter could be rerrritted back to the respondent No'2' 8. Learn'ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission nrade by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appeerring on behalf of the resPondents' e. Iaki-n-s int c n id ra io a) The arforesaid facts and circumstances of t he case' b) The strbmissions made by the learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned senilf,rDesignatedCounselappearingonbelhalfofthe respondents and, c) The contents of the rejection order isstred by the respondent No'2 dated 2L'O3'2O22 to ttre petitioners uph,olding the findings of the previous committee, ,=.*-rv.!! I SN,J wp_22566 2022 which gave rise to the speaking orders, dated 18.02.2020. d) The order of this Court, dated 09.12.2O21 passed in W.P.No.1182S ot 2O2L & batch (referred to and extracted above) ' rejection order of The writ petition is allowed and the impugned respondent No.2 Lr.No.CGM(HRD) /GM(per) /AS(pers&Ser) / pO- A / 2La_ A2/2O22-L dated 21.O3.2O22 issued to the petitioners is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for consideration of the strbject issue afresh in true compliance of the directions of this Court dated O9.L2.2O2L passed in W.p.No.11825 of 2O2L and batch within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate reasoned orders, duly considering petitioners' requests for appointment as Junior I t1 SN.J , ,. )''*,6 l0l: '| _--- Lineman and communicate the said decisiion to the petitionr:rs. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As ,t s':clt el, the miscellaneous petitions' if an z' 3ending in the Writ Feti: r rt shall also stand closed ' /,TRUE COPY// i8i-'"f'3-'i'Y'[t?HXf; ) t SE:C]'ION OFFIC R To

2. J 4 A 6 7 SA BS *ffi I jfllt,*#[::uffi 'I*:TliInF'',. tl#i"?itH1",,,",,r, operatio na r ci rcre' rs s ; P t )c Ltd' +iit gl"iS "Xlt gg'p;5gi.,l|rxixtHilt|;r.1ri?ir"E""' C.C. TODAY ..'-.--..- L;'^ 1 iE srL\ i. )t' c- ", ll,l ii.;i 2Bi5 ( 7 () i '-i.- /, HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.22566 of ?022 ALLOWINGTHE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. r 4 q I t_, 4